Response to Open Letter from Civil Society Organizations
August 20, 2025
Barrick Mining Corporation (Barrick) is aware of the undated open letter addressed to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Asian Development Bank (ADB) undersigned by ‘international CSOs’ (civil society organizations) calling on the lenders to reconsider their financing decision for the Reko Diq Copper-Gold Mine. The Reko Diq project is owned 50% by Barrick, 25% by three federal state-owned enterprises and 25% by the Government of Balochistan.
Barrick considers it appropriate to respond to the open letter to address various inaccuracies and set the record straight.
The reconstitution of the Reko Diq project was completed in December 2022. A comprehensive environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) was undertaken over a period of two-and-a-half years by independent experts, under peer review, and in consultation with local communities, environmental groups, and government stakeholders. The ESIA was designed to meet local regulatory requirements, as well as international best practice, including the IFC Performance Standards and other multilateral lender safeguard requirements. Given the potential for international lending, the project has also undergone additional due diligence by the lenders and their independent advisors.
The open letter states, without substantiation, that the project does not meet lender standards and that it would be ‘impossible’ for the IFC and ADB to uphold their environmental and social safeguards if they proceeded with financing the project. We disagree with these assertions. The ESIA and lender due diligence address these issues raised, which were also the subject to lender‑led stakeholder engagements with CSOs, of which several signatories of the open letter were invited to (and in some cases participated in).
We address each of the five ‘concerns’ raised by the open letter below.
“The impossibility of ensuring effective stakeholder engagement in repressive contexts”
The open letter suggests that meaningful consultation is not possible in Balochistan. We recognize the broader security concerns in the region, which is identified in the ESIA, but it is important to distinguish these broader issues from the engagement process that has taken place around the Reko Diq project.
The project is located in a remote corner of Chagai District, with no doorstep communities. The closest village, Humai, is about 20 kilometres away, and the nearest town, Nok Kundi, is approximately 75 kilometres away. Despite this isolation and low population density, significant engagement has taken place.
Stakeholder engagement and establishing relationships with our stakeholders is a fundamental principle for Barrick. Reko Diq Mining Company (RDMC) has a dedicated community engagement and development department, staffed primarily with professionals from Balochistan. The team has conducted more than 500 consultations — both formal and informal — with every potentially affected community.
Beyond regular engagement, a formal public participation process was undertaken as part of the ESIA. The process, which took place between 2022 and 2024, included a ‘roadshow,’ focus groups, workshops, public meetings, and gender-segregated discussions to ensure broad and culturally appropriate participation. The stakeholders identified included local communities, vulnerable groups such as women and young people, government institutions (including environmental regulators), and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
In addition to the engagement activities to date, Community Development Committees (CDCs) have been established for local communities and for Nok Kundi. The CDCs are comprised of locally elected representatives and are community led. Since 2023 and despite limited on-the-ground activities, Reko Diq has already distributed more than $90M of economic value in country, including more than $8M through the CDCs in community development projects that include infrastructure, equipment and human resources associated with education, healthcare, economic opportunities and potable water plants.
The impact of these investments is tangible. The first children in generations now have access to primary school, with enrolment equally split between boys and girls. This month, the newly commissioned Mothers and Children Unit at the Humai Health Centre (built and supported by Reko Diq) welcomed its first birth – a milestone for a community that previously did not have access to basic healthcare.
All engagements have been open to all stakeholders and communities have been free to raise any questions and concerns that they may have. A grievance mechanism has also been made available, including through anonymous submissions.
To suggest that an alleged ‘atmosphere of fear and repression across Balochistan’ is a burden that prevents local communities from voicing concerns hence ignores the extensive engagement undertaken and the efforts to ensure such engagement is open, culturally appropriate, and includes appropriate safeguards. It also dismisses the local communities’ overwhelming support for the project.
“Impacts on Indigenous Peoples”
The open letter argues that the Baloch people meet the definition of Indigenous Peoples and that the project has failed to recognize this. We acknowledge the importance of this discussion, and we emphasize that the ESIA process gave detailed attention to cultural identity and community rights.
As mentioned above, the ESIA was undertaken by a consortium of independent local and international experts in their field, with their findings subject to independent peer review. The socio-economic studies included a specialized Indigenous Peoples Assessment, including review and input by Dr Hafeez Ahmed Jamali, an independent expert on socio-cultural anthropology in Balochistan. International lenders and their advisors scrutinized the ESIA.
Not only was the ESIA developed in consultation with local communities, but it was also made available for all stakeholders for review and input. The demand made in the open letter to change the finding of the Indigenous Peoples based on a unilateral and unchallenged view is inconsistent with the principle and process of an ESIA.
The ESIA, including written and audio executive summaries in Balochi and Urdu, remains publicly available on Barrick’s website. Indigenous Peoples, as defined by the IFC Performance Standards and ADB safeguards, are not applicable to the Reko Diq project.
“Impacts on water, air, health and livelihoods”
It must be noted that the Reko Diq project is not an operational mine. With the exception of early works in preparation for construction activities, the mine has not been developed and is planned to only begin production in 2028. Thus, ‘outstanding harms… including cyanide poisoning and health impacts’’ and ‘’ documented impacts on human and animal health, and water and air quality’’ are fabricated and an attempt to discredit the project. Not only have these activities not commenced, but the mine will not make use of cyanide in the process at all.
Claims in the open letter regarding local communities' livelihoods are indicative of the lack of understanding for the local context and the environment that Reko Diq is located in. All potential impacts are identified and assessed in the ESIA, and it is evident that the open letter has disregarded these findings and relies on its audience to take its statements at face value.
As outlined in the ESIA, the project will not exacerbate any water scarcity in Balochistan, nor will it deplete or contaminate groundwater that undermines any ‘irrigation and drinking water’. There are no doorstep communities to Reko Diq, and the proposed water source is a sedimentary groundwater system to the northwest of the project. This system represents a small, and isolated part of a much larger basin with no communities, and no community water sources located within the proposed system or its area of influence. In addition, the water source is saline, challenging to access and is not suitable for human consumption or agricultural or industrial uses without significant treatment and abstraction infrastructure.
“The construction of a heavy fuel oil (HFO) power plant to power the project”
The Project will consist of both an HFO power plant, and a solar power plant. The solar power plant will provide all energy required during daylight hours. Due to the projects isolated location, there is currently no alternative power infrastructure, however a transition plan is in development and it is anticipated that the mine will be connected to the Pakistan national grid during the 2030’s. Feasibility studies are ongoing to determine the scope and timing for connection to the national grid, which will not only reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions, but also provide a significant socio-economic benefit in bringing power to the communities in Chagai District: development that will not be possible without Reko Diq.
Thus, the statement that ‘no commitments to mitigate these emissions’ is false.
“Barrick Mining's irresponsible approach to mining”
Barrick has responded to allegations associated with North Mara and Porgera in multiple sources, most recently the 2024 Sustainability Report. Most notably, the linked article refers to a lawsuit that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by the Ontario Superior Court (the decision being currently under appeal), while the Porgera link references an article from 2011 regarding unfortunate incidents that were acknowledged and subsequently remedied through an independent framework that followed 18 months of consultation established under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework.
Conclusion
Barrick is committed to responsible mining and sharing the benefits of its operations with local stakeholder and partners, based on open and transparent engagement and the highest environmental and social safeguards. Barrick will continue to work with all partners, including governmental stakeholders, multilateral lenders, local communities and CSO that share collective objectives for the betterment and development of all stakeholders.
It is notable that the signatories of the open letter are predominantly, and self-described, as ‘international CSOs’. Barrick has engaged with many of these organizations in the past, a selection of which vehemently oppose Barrick projects and mines without exception. It is evident that some of these organizations are simply anti-mining and anti-development. Barrick welcomes debate and transparent engagement, and accepts opposing views to the industry, however such opposition should be viewed in the light that it originates: simply, some of these organizations do not have the wellbeing of rural communities and their rights at the core of their focus, but only wish to oppose mining. Without and prior to Barrick’s presence in these regions, the local communities and their development were not a consideration for these organizations that have remained without water, education or healthcare for generations. It is unfortunate that the communities are instead exploited as a tool in furthering these CSOs own agendas under the guise of protecting human rights and the environment.